Can religion reject this science ?

[viole]

I'm out is what they all say when they can't show falsity .

Good day to you .

Well, I cannot possibly debate with someone that surpassed Einstein...What chances would I have?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ratiocinator]

I know relativity better than Einstein knew relativity , I've advanced Einstein .

No you don't and no you haven't. You need maths to understand relativity and you can't even do basic arithmetic with negative numbers.

 

[james blunt]

1 thats energy/matter, not space which comprises both
2 wrong, it is inflating
3 entropy
4 look up the definition of void and space
5 photons
6 only where you can see through it
7 space is crowded with physicality

This is already proven, but it is absurd to claim observed phenomenon dont exist without providing proof of your claims

Methinks you are confusing space and void. Point 4 should help you

I provided the definition of space !
space
Dictionary result for space
/speɪs/
noun

1. 1.
   a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

Which people seem to ignore and make their own version up interweaving spatial content .

7. space is crowded with physicality


Space is crowded with physicality but if you remove that physicality you are left with empty space . You can understand if you want to . You can't remove the space itself , it is immovable .

 

[james blunt]

Well, I cannot possibly debate with someone that surpassed Einstein...What chances would I have?

Ciao

- viole

Every chance , if you can demonstrate me wrong , please do so . I know I can't demonstrate myself wrong because it is the ''end of the road'' argument and the truth's are the truth . Give me one example of how space could be destroyed and I'll give up !

 

[exchemist]

James,

you are positing postulates that are so old that it is mind boggling that anyone would still use them. You seem to have missed the whole physics of the 20th century and you have the audacity to ask us to accept a view that is ancient and totally discredited. Only people without a clue of physics and math could do that without feeling embarrassed from the start.

I am not sure what your goal is, but if it is to prove something using wrong premises, then that will take you nowhere. It would be like showing the existence of Superman by assuming the existence of kryptonite. Much too easy.

Ciao

- viole

The goal is simple: to get attention. This poster, under a variety of sockpuppet names, has been spraying meaningless nonsense around on science forums for years. No discussion with him goes anywhere, but he has a knack of throwing you enough bones of apparent understanding to keep it going for a while. Until you get wise to the technique.

 

[james blunt]

The goal is simple: to get attention. This poster, under a variety of sockpuppet names, has been spraying meaningless nonsense around on science forums for years. No discussion with him goes anywhere, but he has a knack of throwing you enough bones of apparent understanding to keep it going for a while. Until you get wise to the technique.

Here comes the science cyber cop , they don't want anybody to know the truth !

If you feel so strongly that I'm wrong , then why don't you provide scientific valued argument ?


You know you always lose to me don't you and that's why you are like some stalker and always try to tell people not to talk to me .


Please demonstrate falsity of my postulates ?

I've not even begun yet to show how lame and full of beans science really is !

For years they have tried to stop me from finishing the theory .

P.s You don't know how to discuss , you preach science as if fact ignoring when the errors are pointed out .

 

[james blunt]

What's to come next ?

Micro bang theory , the rudiment energy of the Universe that powers the Universe .

Pfff, Physics should be my middle name .

That video model is the miracle of all existence , there is no force involved , no pressure involved , the zero point energy pops into and out of existence , reference Dirac .

 

[PureX]

I don't think religions reject science, I think they reject "scientism". Some religious practitioners reject science because it interferes with their mythology worship, but tht's their own personal choice. Not a religious dictum. Scientism, on the other hand, is a kind of anti-religious, religion, and thereby establishes itself as a 'counter-theology'.

 

[Nakosis]

I provided the definition of space !
space
Dictionary result for space
/speɪs/
noun

1. 1.
   a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

Which people seem to ignore and make their own version up interweaving spatial content .

7. space is crowded with physicality


Space is crowded with physicality but if you remove that physicality you are left with empty space . You can understand if you want to . You can't remove the space itself , it is immovable .

This is like a layman's definition. Like "Space for rent". IT's how we use the word in common English but it's not the definition use in physics.

4a: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction infinite space and time
b: physical space independent of what occupies it
— called also absolute space

So maybe 4a could to an extent be equated by some to a God. However I think this is more of a human construct.

 

[james blunt]

I don't think religions reject science, I think they reject "scientism". Some religious practitioners reject science because it interferes with their mythology worship, but tht's their own personal choice. Not a religious dictum. Scientism, on the other hand, is a kind of anti-religious, religion, and thereby establishes itself as a 'counter-theology'.

Well I'm not anti religious and my science actually enforces religion because the miracle of the manifestation of energy cannot be explained by physics . It can be explained in a philosophic sense but this still does not take away the miracle of energy manifestation .

 

[james blunt]

This is like a layman's definition. Like "Space for rent". IT's how we use the word in common English but it's not the definition use in physics.

4a: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction infinite space and time
b: physical space independent of what occupies it
— called also absolute space

So maybe 4a could to an extent be equated by some to a God. However I think this is more of a human construct.

Physical space independent of what occupies it is the same thing as a vast unoccupied space . Space-time overlays immovable absolute space , it is the contents of space in the form of field matter and atomic matter .

Try it this way folks , CMBR occupies space , it is independent of space .

Gravitational fields occupy space independent of space .

EMR occupies space independent of space .

Quantum fields occupy space independent of space .

That is not difficult to understand period .

 

[Nakosis]

Physical space independent of what occupies it is the same thing as a vast unoccupied space . Space-time overlays immovable absolute space , it is the contents of space in the form of field matter and atomic matter .

All space all real space is occupied by something. Air, light, radiation. Unoccupied space doesn't exist except as a concept. Something separate from physicality.

I can claim there is a space that exist in the corner of my room. It's there and exists independent of whatever occupies it. The universe doesn't care that I sectioned off a part of it or all of it. Nothing about this "space" I decided on, defined has any actual effect on the universe.

If this space exist independent of physicality then I'd suggest the physical universe exists independent of it.

As far as I can tell this fits

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

2) Space is immovable

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

4) Space is the unique property of a void

5) Space has no mechanism to be visibly light or visibly dark

6) Space is transparent

7) Space has no physicality

According to #7 no physicality, so it can't be disproven, can't be falsified.

 

[james blunt]

All space all real space is occupied by something. Air, light, radiation. Unoccupied space doesn't exist except as a concept. Something separate from physicality.


If this space exist independent of physicality then I'd suggest the physical universe exists independent of it.

You ''see'' it , all space is now occupied by something because of the creation of matter . Before the matter was created unoccupied space existed and has to exist because of the basic fact ,

1) For something to exist it needs a space to exist in .

You also ''see'' the independence , physicality exists independent of space and you also see the postulates fit . I'm impressed , you have a good mind !

P.s I can prove space has no physicality with a simple inflating balloon and spatial geometric points . The spatial geometrical points exterior of the surface end up interior spatial points of the inflated balloon . The balloons surface is passive to space and vice versus .
An additional experiment you can do now at home,

Place a glass upside down on a flat surface

Slide the glass to the left or right

The air is the same air

The geometrical space is now not the same geometrical space . The glass and air pass though the space and the space passes through the glass and air .

Cool hey ?

Another experiment you can do ,

Place the same glass the correct way up and place it on a flat surface . This time do not move it .


The space in the glass is changing as you are observing it , the reason for this is the Earths rotation and Earths orbit of the Sun .

More cool stuff hey ?

 

[George-ananda]

Possibly correct , consciousness occupies space . However , consciousness doesn't explain the creation of consciousness and matter .

In my understanding (non-dual; Advaita Vedanta), consciousness does not occupy space. Consciousness/God/Brahman is a fundamental mystery that we can not get behind. Matter does not create consciousness but rather vice versa. Matter is an illusion created by thought in which the play/drama of the universe is played out..

 

[james blunt]

In my understanding (non-dual; Advaita Vedanta), consciousness does not occupy space. Consciousness/God/Brahman is a fundamental mystery that we can not get behind. Matter does not create consciousness but rather vice versa. Matter is an illusion created by thought in which the play/drama of the universe is played out..

Matter is also classed as energy , consciousness cannot exist without energy and something to process that energy in a neurological process way . Maybe consciousness was created to be aware of the unconscious . Maybe God is so intelligent , God is unconscious and the only way God could become conscious was to create consciousness to recognise Gods unconscious state of being .

 

[shmogie]

The Big Bang is a useless theory that doesn't work !

Space was not created at the BB unless the universe started within a solid , but that is room rather than space that always exists. Any event needs a space to happen in , simple logic and science .

Sorry, but you simply are wrong. The BB works very well based upon the actual observation of the universe and massive amounts of mathematical data.

You are assuming that what you observe within the universe, holds true outside the universe, but you have absolutely no reason to believe that. What we know as natural law, however you choose to define it, is confined and operable only within the universe.

Solids were created at the BB, space was created at the BB, EVERYTHING that exists was created by the BB. Before that there was nothing, no thing, and space is some thing.

Please show where the BB ¨doesn´t work ¨

 

[shmogie]

You seem to know when that happened. Can you also say where that happened?

If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

There was no where when it happened.

 

[james blunt]

Sorry, but you simply are wrong. The BB works very well based upon the actual observation of the universe and massive amounts of mathematical data.

The big bang has more holes in it than a sieve .

Where to start , before the big bang there was nothing , no space


That is absurd , do they suggest there was a solid ?

There is solids and space , 0 dimensions are a point of space period .

Then from nothing it jumps in information and a hot dense state magically appears .

Laughable .........barmy ......idocracy .

There is no space suggests the interior of a solid , then magically a hot dense state appears which needs space to appear in ,but that space apparently didn't exist .

Then I think anti matter is mentioned which is not needed or required .....

You do know the CBMR drawing is an artists impression and not what they observe?

They detect CMBR a bit like static affecting an antenna .

 

[George-ananda]

Matter is also classed as energy , consciousness cannot exist without energy and something to process that energy in a neurological process way . Maybe consciousness was created to be aware of the unconscious . Maybe God is so intelligent , God is unconscious and the only way God could become conscious was to create consciousness to recognise Gods unconscious state of being .

As part of my non-dual beliefs, consciousness is not created by matter and energy but rather incarnates matter and energy. Pure consciousness is not physical but the fundamental mystery we can't get behind.

Here are the two points of view as I understand what you are saying:

Materialist (you): Matter/Energy is fundamental and Consciousness is a derivative of Matter/Energy

Non-Dual (me): Consciousness is fundamental and Matter/Energy is a derivative of Consciousness

 

[james blunt]

As part of my non-dual beliefs, consciousness is not created by matter and energy but rather incarnates matter and energy. Pure consciousness is not physical but the fundamental mystery we can't get behind.

Here are the two points of view as I understand what you are saying:

Materialist (you): Matter/Energy is fundamental and Consciousness is a derivative of Matter/Energy

Non-Dual (me): Consciousness is fundamental and Matter/Energy is a derivative of Consciousness

Not by definition but if we was to view the semantics differently and redefine consciousness , why not ?

There is no evidence that consciousness doesn't exist in a higher form beyond life experience .

I do think there has to be energy involved though , light can contain information as we know .